Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/archive4


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:11, 16 January 2010.

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

 * ''Nominator(s): ATC . Talk 16:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for the fourth time, as after getting more help from copyeditor User:Truthkeeper88, and a list of suggestions from User:Matthewedwards, and some copyediting of my own, I know think it meets FAC criteria. ATC. Talk 16:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Source comments What makes this reliable?
 * http://newsblaze.com/story/20071011141714tsop.np/topstory.html
 * I see this one has been removed but another News Blaze ref has popped up. Please remove it. RB88 (T) 01:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 04:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Include the publisher even for the webcasts when you cite them.
 * Ref 25 is pretty bare.
 * Ref 26's publisher needs italics.
 * If you're going to cite both work and publisher for some refs, then either do it for all or none. It's your call but we require uniformity.


 * Okay, I will fix them. Also what do you mean by "bare" exactly. Could you reword what you meant, so I can understand? Thanx! ATC . Talk 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * NVM, I figured it out when I was fixing the other references - making the work/publisher in italics, additionally reverting all of the publisher to simply: work. ATC . Talk 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a lot of citation cleanup, but I don't think I got it all. Quite a few things were wrong.  Some titles wrong, some wrong citation templates were used, the "work" parameter automatically italicizes, so additional italics aren't needed, and only periodicals, newspapers and journals are in italics, website should be listed as publisher so they aren't italicized.  The citations should still be checked; I only went through quickly.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandy. ATC, follow her advice and also answer to my query about the reliability of Newsblaze. Cheers. RB88 (T) 00:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RB88: Yes, you're right NewsBlaze is not reliable. I was trying to find a reliable source to replace it with. I wanted to know if this is a press release, and if not so, is it reliable: http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2008/07/naked_brothers_band_to_visit_c.html. ATC . Talk 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh Thanx SandyGeorgia for the clean-up. I knew something didn't seem right with how I was fixing it and thought that was the problem. ATC . Talk 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RB88: NVM, I figured out that it was a news source, I didn't know at first that it was Plain Dealer. ATC . Talk 02:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some other questionable sources, including a least an editorial review on amazon.com; I saw some others while I was in there, but don't recall which. (It may have been something from sfgate.com that was editor submitted from a blog ... but I can't recall correctly.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know what you're talking about. I'll get to that, but first I had a question about another source. http://www.top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=34898 for: The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie with the sentence: it was placed in the top-10 spot on the Nielsen VideoScan children's non-theatrical DVD charts.[36] I went to the Nielsen news release website and looked up top 10 releases in 2007 (on a PDF file) and the film was not listed. Top40 charts is the only source that comes up on Google (That and NewsBlaze). Should I not include it if a reliable source can not be found? ATC . Talk 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

<-- It doesn't matter if there aren't other sources. If the sources you use are unreliable then they and the material has to be removed. I suggest putting it in the talk page until a more suitable source has been found. Also, I think the Amazon editorial review is fine. The website, especially in the past, tried to provide more than just a store service. In fact, Metacritic often used its reviews. RB88 (T) 01:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I erased the source and left a message on the talk page. ATC . Talk 04:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia: I looked into the SFGate.com source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/15/PKH4UT9HO.DTL. It looks like a blog, but on top it says its by the San Francisco Chronicle, which is the top-selling newspaper company in Northern California. I don't understand what a blog would be doing on there, but it seems reliable and am not entirely sure if its a blog. ATC . Talk 07:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's OK by my book, as the article is merely a reproduction from the print edition of the newspaper (see the bottom of the page), and is written by one of the newspaper's regular contributing journalists. Steve  T • C 11:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Did you go to the source itself, because it's in a blog format kind of. I guess other users should put there input too. ATC . Talk 18:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer; yes I did go to the page, where the source itself says, "This article appeared on page N - 40 of the San Francisco Chronicle". All the best, Steve  T • C 21:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my bad there has been a misunderstanding. There were two SFGate sources on the Wiki article, I wasn't referring to that one. I was referring to this one about venture capitalist Tim Draper, Polly Draper's brother. ATC . Talk 00:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Image review: article uses a single image, qualified as fair-use, to identify its subject. The FUR only needed a little bit of tweaking, but is now fine. Jappalang (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on the basis of the prose in the lead, which you'd think would have been given loving care.
 * "television movie"—is that an unclear, uncommon word? Is it useful to link it?
 * Fixed it. ATC . Talk 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please consider moving the comma from before "and" to before "who" in the opening sentence.
 * Fixed it. ATC . Talk 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I find the semicolon boundaries bumpy in the second sentence, don't you?
 * Fixed it. ATC . Talk 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are three people called "Draper". I think the second para has to start with "The director" or her full name.
 * Fixed it. ATC . Talk 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "decided to present the footage in the style of"—Maybe I'm too distant from the topic, but isn't this a little cumbersome? Why not straight and simple, like "The film is in the style of ..."?
 * Fixed it. ATC . Talk 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "As" is a dangerous word in English: is it a "because" or a "during/while" as? I really don't know. I can't see how either would fit, actually.
 * Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Based on the band her eldest son Nat had in preschool"—sounds like he had sex with them? Starting young ... I see after two seconds, though. There's a smoother way of putting it, yes?
 * Sorry, a little confused by your comment. At any rate, one solution is to tweak slightly & reword, which has been done. Another solution would be to remove the introductory clause if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NYC, isn't it too famous to bother linking? Unless there's a more specific NYC-type link-target (I don't think so). And you've got a more specific location linked, anyway ... please see User:Tony1/Build your linking skills.
 * Fixed it. ATC . Talk 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * late 2005.
 * Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The network became the pilot?
 * Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The film premiered in the US on that date, yes? Better to say that, given that native anglophones inhabit at least seven countries.
 * Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs a team effort. Tony  (talk)  11:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Has the rest been copy-edited? 18 days is a loooong time to be in this process. Tony   (talk)  11:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After your review of the lead a few days ago, I've been through, Steve's been through and ATC has been through. In my view, Steve's edits were the best, so I've just restored them. I'm happy to address specific issues you see. Honestly, I've spent a little too much time with this article and have lost some perspective, so a fresh set of eyes is welcome. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Truthkeeper88, it was amazing after seeing User:Steve's edits. It's exactly what the article needed! ATC . Talk 16:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I copyedited it again, but I suppose the contractions and other stuff came back again after Steve finished with it last time? I haven't checked the MOS or RS, but probably should have talked about RS before copyedits otherwise contents from questionable sources get reworked and then have to be copyedited again  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  06:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, do we know what area of Manhattan it was in? It could have been in upper East Side, or alternatively a slum in Harlem, or Chinatown  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  06:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Greenwich Village according to this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Truthkeeper88 you're right but according the TimesCenter stage interview when a kid asked them where they lived (when they were taking questions from fans) they said "Manhattan" and I think it was Michael who said "Lower Manhattan". I think its important to respect their privacy regardless of what the news article said and just write "Lower Manhattan" or the Lower part of Manhattan. The JazzTimes article author/interviewer may of never asked about not saying what part of Manhattan they live in, so I don't think we want to be at risk for any legal privacy problems, as they're people and deserve there privacy. ATC . Talk 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.